Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities...but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world's leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.

Excerpt: 'Gore would have personally benefited if the carbon cap-and-trade bill he supported had become law. The media never treated his Congressional testimony in support of the climate bills for what it actually was—a former vice president supporting legislation that would make him richer.'

'Al Gore Is by Far the Most Lavishly Funded Fossil Fuel Player in the Global Warming Debate Today.'

"Warren Buffett’s vice chairman Charlie Munger told a small meeting of investors in 2017 that Gore is 'not very smart' and 'an idiot' but he was still able to amass a personal fortune in the investment world. 'Al Gore has hundreds of millions [of] dollars in your profession. And he’s an idiot. It’s an interesting story.' Munger added, 'he’s not very smart. He smoked a lot of pot as he [coasted] through Harvard with a gentleman’s C.'

And it’s not just universities, professors, and green organizations that have reaped financial benefits from the climate panic. Former vice president Al Gore has done quite well for himself, too. As Bloomberg News reported, “In the last personal finance report he filed as vice president, Gore disclosed on May 22, 2000, that the value of his assets totaled between $780,000 and $1.9 million.”

Buy by 2007, Gore’s wealth had skyrocketed. By that point he had a net worth “well in excess” of $100 million, including pre–public offering Google stock options, according to an article at Fast Company. MIT scientist Richard Lindzen declared that Gore wanted to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire.” After the Obama administration bloated climate and energy stimulus packages, Gore was on the path to that achievement.

By 2008, Gore was so flush that he announced a $300 million campaign to promote climate fears and so-called solutions. And he just kept raking it in. According to a 2012 Washington Post report, “14 green-tech firms in which Gore invested received or directly benefited from more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants and tax breaks, part of Obama’s historic push to seed a U.S. renewable-energy industry with public money.”

The Post explained that Gore “benefited from a powerful resume and a constellation of friends in the investment world and in Washington. And four years ago, his portfolio aligned smoothly with the agenda of an incoming administration and its plan to spend billions in stimulus funds on alternative energy. The recovering politician was pushing the right cause at the perfect time. Gore’s orbit extended deeply into the administration, with several former aides winning senior clean-energy posts.”

Republican Congressman Fred Upton of Michigan, the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has been a critic of Gore’s profiting off the taxpayer funds using his government connections. Gore’s portfolio “is reflective of a disturbing pattern that those closest to the president [Obama] have been rewarded with billions of taxpayer dollars and benefited from the administration’s green bonanza in the rush to spend stimulus cash.”

Gore was essentially either a founder, a member, or a partner in a whole wide range of groups that were profiting or poised to profit from a green energy stimulus and federally mandated carbon trading schemes if they became law. Gore would have personally benefited if the carbon cap-and-trade bill he supported had become law. The media never treated his Congressional testimony in support of the climate bills for what it actually was—a former vice president supporting legislation that would make him richer. These reports prompted one sarcastic skeptic to suggest, “Maybe Al Gore Should Be the Subject of a RICO Investigation.”

The power of carbon trading schemes to enrich politicians and corrupt politics is one reason that environmental guru James Lovelock has slammed carbon trading, declaring, “Most of the ‘green’ stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It’s not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it’ll make a lot of money for a lot of people.”

In 2013, Gore sold his Current TV network to the Qatar-funded Al Jazeera for a reported $100 million. The sale inspired this headline at my Climate Depot website: “AlGorjeera—It’s Official: Al Gore Is by Far the Most Lavishly Funded Fossil Fuel Player in the Global Warming Debate Today.”

I asked if the media would now accurately label Gore an industry-funded activist every time they reported on him. Gore had literally sold out to big oil and gas: Al-Jazeera “received its initial funding through a decree from Emir of Qatar, and Qatar gets its wealth from its vast oil and natural gas reserves.”

The freshly laid off staffers from Current TV did not hesitate to lash out at Gore. “Gore’s supposed to be the face of clean energy and just sold [the channel] to very big oil, the emir of Qatar! Current never even took big oil advertising—and Al Gore, that bullshitter sells to the emir?” declared one former staffer, according to the New York Post. Another staffer commented, “He [Gore] has no credibility.”

Apocalyptic scenarios attributed to global warming are simply false and the human race will be able to accommodate whatever “climate change” throws at us, claims a remarkably sober new essay in Scientific American.

The essay, penned by John Horgan, the director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, analyzes two recent reports by “ecomodernists” who reject climate panic and frame the question of climate change and humanity’s ability to cope with it in radically new terms.

One of the reports, a work called “Enlightened Environmentalism” by Harvard iconoclast Steven Pinker, urges people to regain some much-needed perspective on climate, especially in the context of the overwhelming material benefits of industrialization.

Pooh-poohing “the mainstream environmental movement, and the radicalism and fatalism it encourages,” Pinker argues that humanity can solve problems related to climate change the same way it has solved myriad other problems, by harnessing “the benevolent forces of modernity.”

Separating himself from environmentalists who seem to detest modernity, Pinker asserts that industrialization “has been good for humanity.”

“It has fed billions, doubled lifespans, slashed extreme poverty, and, by replacing muscle with machinery, made it easier to end slavery, emancipate women, and educate children. It has allowed people to read at night, live where they want, stay warm in winter, see the world, and multiply human contact. Any costs in pollution and habitat loss have to be weighed against these gifts,” he says.

advertisement

And just as human ingenuity has allowed us to overcome countless obstacles in the past, he notes, it is more than reasonable to suppose it will do so in the future as well.

The second report put forward by Horgan is a recent article by Will Boisvert titled “The Conquest of Climate,” which contends that the “consequences for human well-being will be small” even if human greenhouse emissions significantly warm the planet.

Boisvert, who has been described as a “left-wing environmental expert, is no “climate denier,” yet he calls for climate alarmists to take a deep breath and step back from doomsday forecasts that likely have little to do with what will actually take place in the future.

As an example, the author pokes fun at a 2016 Newsweek article announcing that “Climate change could cause half a million deaths in 2050 due to reduced food availability.”

The story, based on a Lancet study, made dire forecasts regarding the effects of climate change on agriculture, while failing to note that the study actually predicts much more abundant food availability in 2050 thanks to advances in agricultural productivity. These advances will “dwarf the effects of climate change,” he contends, and the “poorest countries will benefit most.”

Like Pinkers, Boisvert tries to factor in what climate alarmists ignore: the capability of human beings to react to changing scenarios in remarkably ingenious ways.

“Throughout history humans not only weathered climate crises but deliberately flung ourselves into them as we migrated away from our African homeland into deserts, mountains, floodplains and taiga,” he writes, before embarking on an excursus into the striking cleverness of the Inuit in adapting to a hostile environment.

The current climate change “crisis” that has ecologists’ knickers in a knot, just isn’t that big a deal, he argues. It is merely the “latest episode in humanity’s ongoing conquest of extreme climates,” which will likewise “amount to just another problem in economic and technological development, and a middling-scale one at that.”

While climate skeptics will welcome this gust of common sense wafting in from the Scientific American, establishment climate alarmists will undoubtedly seek to quash the news, knowing it could affect not only the funding they depend on, but the ideologically driven political programs they seek to impose on the world.

After all, if the world is not under imminent peril from climate change, who will listen to—and fund—the prophets of doom?

Alarmist scientists have been caught red-handed tampering with raw data in order to exaggerate sea level rise.

The raw (unadjusted) data from three Indian Ocean gauges – Aden, Karachi and Mumbai – showed that local sea level trends in the last 140 years had been very gently rising, neutral or negative (ie sea levels had fallen).

But after the evidence had been adjusted by tidal records gatekeepers at the global databank Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) it suddenly showed a sharp and dramatic rise.

The whistle was blown by two Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for Earth Systems and Environment.

The authors expose how PSMSL data-adjusters make it appear that stable sea levels can be rendered to look like they are nonetheless rising at an accelerated pace.

The data-adjusters take misaligned and incomplete sea level data from tide gauges that show no sea level rise (or even a falling trend). Then, they subjectively and arbitrarily cobble them together, or realign them. In each case assessed, PSMSL data-adjusters lower the earlier misaligned rates and raise the more recent measurements. By doing so, they concoct a new linearly-rising trend.

A new study from the Fraser Institute says taxes aimed at curbing climate change and helping green energy projects produce phenomenal costs and little benefit to the environment.

The Vancouver-based group examined climate change initiatives in Canada and around the world, all of which wastes billions of taxpayer dollars.

“Across the country, ineffective climate policies will cost taxpayers billions with little to show for it,” said Fraser Institiute energy and natural resources expert Kenneth Green in a news release Thursday.

Jason Kenney, the new leader of the United Conservative Party in Alberta, was quick to seize on the report, tweeting on Friday: “New study says the NDP carbon tax will cost the average family $3600 over the next 3 years. It is ‘going to cost a great deal of money, but, most likely, will yield very little return in terms of environmental benefits.’”

The Fraser Institute awarded the Alberta “climate action plan” with the title of the “most expensive in Canada,” with projected costs of $5.4 billion over the next three years. Alberta, the energy capital of Canada with potentially more oil buried in its oil sands than exists in Saudi Arabia, currently has a quasi-socialist provincial government that promotes climate change and green energy projects.

But the Fraser Institiute says that for all the expense of fighting the climate change war, the desired results will be neglible and “will likely yield much fewer environmental benefits than projected.”

The study looked at green energy programs and carbon taxes in Germany, the U.K. and the state of California, and found two things in common: huge costs and low environmental results.

The institute blasted the way that carbon taxes have been implemented, specifically when governments insist levies are “revenue neutral.” It also cites the recurring habit of green energy advocates to ignore the massive subsidies required for the production of “clean energy” substitutes like wind and solar power.

Originally published by GR in 2009. The data presented by the author pertains to the period prior to 2009

Ten facts about climate change

Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a “stable” climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.

Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.

Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signalhas been identified in the global temperature pattern.

Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180C rather than the equable +150C that has nurtured the development of life. Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted asthe main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.
Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that “the IPCC review process is fatally flawed” and that “the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz“.

The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).
The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov,senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism “one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism“. If Kyoto was a “first step” then it was in the same wrong direction as the later “Bali roadmap”.

Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.

Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.

The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.

The reality is that almostevery aspect ofclimate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.

LAYING TEN GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS

Myth 1 Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.

Fact 1 Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995.

Myth 2 During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.

Facts 2 The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-20C/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 yr. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past.

Myth 3 AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes “hockey stick” curve and its computer extrapolation).

Facts 3 The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.

Myth 4 Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60C over the next 100 years.

Myth 5 Warming of more than 20C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.

Facts 5 A 20C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.

Myth 6 Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.

Facts 6 No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 10C. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration.

Facts 7 The sun’s output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22- and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth’s climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.80C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change.

Myth 8 Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.

Facts 8 Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice aroundAntarctica attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times.

Facts 9 SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of human-influenced increase.

Myth 10 The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.

Facts 10 Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system.

The late Robert M. Carter was a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience.

One of the greatest lies ever perpetrated and propagated is the lie of the "persistent condensation trail". Without knowing any of the related science facts on this issue, anyone with a sense of reason should be able to determine the fact that our skies are being sprayed. Trails that are turned on and off, grid patterns one day and nothing the next (in spite of identical atmospheric conditions). Witnessing one jet leaving a trail from horizon to horizon adjacent to another jet at a similar altitude that leaves virtually nothing. Trails of completely dissimilar compositions and colors. Plumes behind jets that do not match the alignment of the engines themselves causing some of the trails to shoot out to one side of the aircraft. There is also of course the fact that climate science circles and governments around the globe are clamoring for climate engineering to be deployed, though none in these communities of tyrants and cowards will yet admit to the truth. Our society has been well trained to accept the official narrative on countless issues which is how those in power hide their crimes in plain site. The fact that so many official explanations are completely contrary to reason and the laws of physics seems not to matter to most of the population, "ignorance is bliss" as the saying goes.

Editor's Note: Yep. It's all been total bull shit, a testament to the ability of global control freaks to manufacture and force feed unprecedented amounts of propaganda brainwashing to try and achieve their maniacal goals of global government control over everyone and everything. The global warming con job was meant to be the primary funding mechanism for their wet dream of global gubermint via carbon taxing schemes. The IPCC was and is a self-serving UN atrocity.

Another group of prominent climate scientists have published research claiming humanity may have a couple extra decades before pushing the world past what the U.N. calls “dangerous” levels of global warming.

However, the importance of the study isn’t in future projections — which always have high amounts of uncertainty — but rather in its endorsement of the new “consensus” on global warming.

“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations,” Myles Allen, a geosystem scientist at the University of Oxford, told The Times on Monday.

“The models end up with a warming which is larger than the observed warming for the current emissions. … So, therefore, they derive a budget which is much lower,” study co-author Pierre Friedlingstein of the University of Exeter said, according to The Washington Post.

Most climate models over-predicted the amount of warming during the early 21st Century. From 1998 to 2014, there wasn’t much of an increase in global average surface temperature readings. Satellite data showed a more than 20-year “hiatus” in warming.

However, scientists have debated whether or not the “hiatus” in warming was due to instrumental errors or natural climate variations the models didn’t take into account.

Co-author Joeri Rogelj of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis told WaPo the sophisticated climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “tend to slightly overestimate historical warming, and at the same time underestimate compatible historical CO2 emissions.”

“These two small discrepancies accumulate over time and lead to an slight underestimation of the remaining carbon budget,” Rogelj told WaPo. “What we did in this study is to reset the uncertainties, starting from where we are today.”

For years, global warming skeptics argued the models were showing more warming than actual observations, and it wasn’t until 2016 that prominent scientists admitted they were right.

Christy’s research has shown climate models show 2.5 times more warming in the bulk atmosphere than has been observed.

This study is only the latest to confirm the “hiatus” happened. This author and atmospheric scientist Ryan Maue wrote about the new “consensus” on global warming in the wake of a June study by prominent climate scientists.

That study found “satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble.”

Still, some scientists have criticized the new study.

Potsdam Institute scientist Stefan Rahmstorf told WaPo the new study “adjusted the budget upward based on the idea that there has been less observed warming than suggested by the climate models, but that is not actually true if you do the comparison properly.”

Most people don't know the Federal Reserve is not a government entity. It's no more Federal than Federal Express. It's owned and controlled by the largest private banks. They are using their control of the Fed to destroy the dollar, our economy and wipe out the middle class so they can replace it with a system and currency they have even MORE control of. If we don't shut down the bankers, the Federal Reserve, this nation is history! The Congress can REPEAL THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT and return control over our currency to "We The People." We have to take back control of Congress and DEMAND THIS HAPPEN in the upcoming election!